Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8806 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-18-2017 12:15 AM
345 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,532 Year: 29,138/21,208 Month: 1,204/1,847 Week: 127/452 Day: 1/126 Hour: 1/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
1920
...
23Next
Author Topic:   My HUGE problem with creationist thinking (re: Which version of creationism)
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 1807 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 256 of 336 (637770)
10-17-2011 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by IamJoseph
10-17-2011 5:26 PM


Re: Evolved Warts
They knew how to write in advanced alphabetical books - show us another equivalence of people who knew nothing - or check the Nobels listing?

These stories were not written down until centuries later. There was no alphabets in the 5th millinium BCE.

Also, locusts are winged creatures - these were yet not emerged till airborne life emerged. Nor can this be related to 'creepy crawly creatures.

The storytellers knew of locusts. Locusts and other winged creatures appeared in the carboniferous, millions of years before the storytellers. is a large conglomeration of a particular thing and a swarm of swarms ids simply a swarm of swarms of other things.

As I said before, the war which destroyed the temple was by Babylon and its allies; the exile was to Babylon:

What allies? The destroyer of the Temple was the Chaldean Empire, who had overthrown the Assyrians. The Babylonians hadn't been in power for nearly 1000 years prior to the destruction of the temple.

Rakefet writes:

The racial origin of the Chaldeans, and the original source of their secret knowledge, is to be found in Central Asia, for there was a long period of time, not so many scores of thousands of years ago, when all this region enjoyed a genial climate and was covered with populous cities and vast tracts of intensely cultivated soil; and was inhabited by a people not inferior to ourselves today, and indeed in some respects superior in knowledge (cf SOPh 16-25).

Rakefet:Thesophical Society in Pasadena www.theosociety.org
Thesophical Society in Israel www.theospphia.co.il


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by IamJoseph, posted 10-17-2011 5:26 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by IamJoseph, posted 10-17-2011 11:22 PM bluescat48 has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6037
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 1.6


(1)
Message 257 of 336 (637774)
10-17-2011 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Percy
10-17-2011 9:27 PM


Re: Evolved Warts
Nuggin and I have done a pretty fair job of explaining how you're misinterpreting swarm. You have to understand the meaning of English words before we can discuss the actual topic.

I don't see why explaining the definition of swarm again would have any better likelihood of success, so I guess I give up, but I suppose this does represent another good example of creationist thinking. You and Robert Byers and Dawn Bertot and others display a profound lack of comprehension skills, and an inability to understand could be considered a type of creationist thinking.

It looks like their unusual interpretation of this and other words is necessary to reinforce for their beliefs in the bible's accuracy.

If the words don't make sense the way everyone interprets them, why, just change the meaning of the words! Because of course the bible can't be in error.

We see this same nonsense in other threads as well. No matter what the evidence the bible can't be wrong, so they twist and manipulate words and concepts, and ignore what they have to, until everything works out the way they want.

This is the exact opposite of science, where we do our best to make our terms and concepts clear and to follow the data where it leads.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Percy, posted 10-17-2011 9:27 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1285 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 258 of 336 (637781)
10-17-2011 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Nuggin
10-17-2011 8:46 PM


Re: Evolved Warts
I am not being dishonest, specially not compared to the thrash you post.

IMO, swarms can be any size when seen as identical similar things concentrated together and moving in a singular path - like locusts. However, it is also related to small and specially so when this is emphasized as 'swarms of smarms' and when airborn life cannot be allocated at this phase.

Where is the equivalent list of life forms in Egypt or any other writings?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Nuggin, posted 10-17-2011 8:46 PM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Nuggin, posted 10-17-2011 11:15 PM IamJoseph has responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 110 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(3)
Message 259 of 336 (637782)
10-17-2011 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by IamJoseph
10-17-2011 11:10 PM


Re: Evolved Warts
IMO, swarms can be any size when seen as identical similar things concentrated together and moving in a singular path - like locusts. However, it is also related to small and specially so when this is emphasized as 'swarms of smarms' and when airborn life cannot be allocated at this phase.

We keep going around and around.

Can you cite ANY other examples in ANY other texts that use the word "swarm" to mean "something small"?

Remember, we aren't looking for the use of the word "swarm" where it's used to mean "lots of" something and the thing happens to be small.

A "swarm" of ants mentioned in some other book is not evidence that swarm means small. It still means "lots".

Your entire argument has been that the use of the word "swarm" in the Bible is evidence that the Bible recorded microscopic life prior to its discovery by people.

But you ALONE are the only one using the word "swarm" in this way. Biblical scholars in the past, certainly didn't use the term this way. Modern day Rabbinical scholars certainly don't use the word this way. All these people are certain about their use of the word.

So, we're left with the impression that you will bend over backwards to redefine (read: make shit up) words to pretend they mean something they don't and then declare that as evidence.

Deep down, you know you are being dishonest.

That is our greatest victory. The fact that you are lying to yourself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by IamJoseph, posted 10-17-2011 11:10 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by IamJoseph, posted 10-17-2011 11:44 PM Nuggin has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1285 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 260 of 336 (637783)
10-17-2011 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by bluescat48
10-17-2011 9:31 PM


Re: Evolved Warts
quote:
These stories were not written down until centuries later. There was no alphabets in the 5th millinium BCE.

How do such statements pass w/o any response! Hebrew alphabets have been found dated 1000 BCE; king David has been proven, even where he wrote different psalms - all in alphabetical prose which have not dated any today. David is a mere 250 years from Moses. You should post your evidence when making such statements.

quote:

Also, locusts are winged creatures - these were yet not emerged till airborne life emerged. Nor can this be related to 'creepy crawly creatures.

The storytellers knew of locusts. Locusts and other winged creatures appeared in the carboniferous, millions of years before the storytellers. is a large conglomeration of a particular thing and a swarm of swarms ids simply a swarm of swarms of other things.


Even allowing your premise, it still marks an advanced view placing winged creatures before water borne creatures. How did those ancient people determine such stuff - wiki!?

quote:
As I said before, the war which destroyed the temple was by Babylon and its allies; the exile was to Babylon:

What allies? The destroyer of the Temple was the Chaldean Empire, who had overthrown the Assyrians. The Babylonians hadn't been in power for nearly 1000 years prior to the destruction of the temple.


My understanding is the Babylonian empire was at its peak at this time, as was Rome later. Babylon was conquered by Persia, which allowed the Jews to return from Babylon [Mesopotamia; Iraq] and rebuild the destroyed temple - this event 'proves' the Hebrew bible predates 586 BCE by centuries. It is also where the re-Islamic peoples learnt of Monotheism and Judaism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by bluescat48, posted 10-17-2011 9:31 PM bluescat48 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Rrhain, posted 10-17-2011 11:47 PM IamJoseph has responded
 Message 270 by bluescat48, posted 10-18-2011 1:12 AM IamJoseph has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1285 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 261 of 336 (637784)
10-17-2011 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by Percy
10-17-2011 6:15 PM


Re: Evolved Warts
I used the term nano life loosely. Its a diversion to focus on this. The point is about transit life forms between species, and this is well catered to in the Genesis texts, including swarms of swarms, creepy crawlies and 'every creature that lives.'
This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Percy, posted 10-17-2011 6:15 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Percy, posted 10-18-2011 9:12 AM IamJoseph has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1285 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 262 of 336 (637785)
10-17-2011 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by Nuggin
10-17-2011 11:15 PM


Re: Evolved Warts
quote:

Can you cite ANY other examples in ANY other texts that use the word "swarm" to mean "something small"?


Swarms can refer to bacteria - I posted such a rendering. Swarms of swarms' do refer to size.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Nuggin, posted 10-17-2011 11:15 PM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Nuggin, posted 10-17-2011 11:48 PM IamJoseph has responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6229
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


(2)
Message 263 of 336 (637786)
10-17-2011 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by IamJoseph
10-17-2011 11:22 PM


IamJoseph responds to bluescat48:

quote:
quote:
These stories were not written down until centuries later. There was no alphabets in the 5th millinium BCE.

How do such statements pass w/o any response! Hebrew alphabets have been found dated 1000 BCE


You act like there's a contradiction. You do know what "millennium" means, yes? You do understand that the 5th millennium was before 1000 BCE, yes? Thus, if there were no alphabets in the 5th millennium, how is that a problem when Hebrew alphabets show up four thousand years later?

quote:
king David has been proven

No, not really.

quote:
You should post your evidence when making such statements.

Indeed. You should. You're the one saying he existed. It's your burden of proof.

quote:
it still marks an advanced view placing winged creatures before water borne creatures.

Which is completely backwards from what actually happened. Ergo, the Bible got it wrong.

quote:
How did those ancient people determine such stuff - wiki!?

You know of no ways in which stories are created? The only two ways are to witness it directly and to reference what someone else said?

quote:
this event 'proves' the Hebrew bible predates 586 BCE by centuries.

Except it doesn't. Too many references to events that happened after then (such as cities that didn't exist until the first or second century BCE) as well as linguistic constructs that wouldn't come into play until hundreds of years after what you claim.

There is history to be found in the Bible. However, it is not the history you want to learn.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by IamJoseph, posted 10-17-2011 11:22 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by IamJoseph, posted 10-18-2011 12:24 AM Rrhain has responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 110 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 264 of 336 (637787)
10-17-2011 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by IamJoseph
10-17-2011 11:44 PM


Re: Evolved Warts
Swarms can refer to bacteria

As we pointed out earlier, swarms refer to a number of individuals in a group.

Swarms of bacteria is not a reference to the size of bacteria. It's a reference to their number.

You need to find a place where the word "swarm" is used in the singular as a description of the size of an object.

"The puppy was a swarm" would be a good example.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by IamJoseph, posted 10-17-2011 11:44 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by IamJoseph, posted 10-18-2011 12:02 AM Nuggin has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1285 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 265 of 336 (637790)
10-18-2011 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by Nuggin
10-17-2011 11:48 PM


Re: Evolved Warts
quote:

As we pointed out earlier, swarms refer to a number of individuals in a group


Swarms can refer to bacteria. And how come you never picked up this all encompasing statement listed prior to air borne creatures emerging:

quote:

and every living creature that creepeth, wherewith the waters swarmed

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Nuggin, posted 10-17-2011 11:48 PM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Nuggin, posted 10-18-2011 12:52 AM IamJoseph has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1285 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 266 of 336 (637791)
10-18-2011 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by Rrhain
10-17-2011 11:47 PM


quote:
You do know what "millennium" means, yes? You do understand that the 5th millennium was before 1000 BCE, yes?

Yes, that is my error. I read as 5th C. There was no alphabetical writings then, but I believe the pyramids are older than 5000 years and these contain earlier writing modes.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
king David has been proven
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, not really.


He is mentioned in a relic 100 years after his death. Even 'House of David' is mentioned, which is a biblical term, as well as a war listed in the book of Kings. Are you saying David is a myth?

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it still marks an advanced view placing winged creatures before water borne creatures.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which is completely backwards from what actually happened. Ergo, the Bible got it wrong.


Life started in water; next up is air borne life. This is correct, nor is the premise of making such a claim anything less than astounding for its time.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How did those ancient people determine such stuff - wiki!?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You know of no ways in which stories are created? The only two ways are to witness it directly and to reference what someone else said?


You have no proof of your claim, which says it is without any merit and made only to reject as a predisposition, which is a wiodespread syndrome but not a legitimate one.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
this event 'proves' the Hebrew bible predates 586 BCE by centuries.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Except it doesn't. Too many references to events that happened after then (such as cities that didn't exist until the first or second century BCE) as well as linguistic constructs that wouldn't come into play until hundreds of years after what you claim.


Does this apply also to a temple which was destroyed, listed in numerous books made before this date!?

quote:

There is history to be found in the Bible. However, it is not the history you want to learn.


We do need to learn it - it is indispensible: a host of primodial factors depend on it, and these are not found anywhere else. The origins of three religions depend on Abraham and Moses being credible entities else they fall in a heap, and this is derived exclusively from the Hebrew bible. Genesis stands in the face of all notions of human history as a yard stick - significantly, we have no 'name' older than Adam; the first 'king' is listed here as well as the first human cencus. Ancient names listed in the geneologies in Genesis are today used by archeology to verifiy dates. There is no other writings more important or offers more to learn from: name one?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Rrhain, posted 10-17-2011 11:47 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by bluescat48, posted 10-18-2011 1:00 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded
 Message 269 by Rrhain, posted 10-18-2011 1:09 AM IamJoseph has responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 110 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 267 of 336 (637793)
10-18-2011 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by IamJoseph
10-18-2011 12:02 AM


Swarms
Swarms can refer to bacteria.

IamJoseph, here's a little tip for debating.

Repeating the EXACT SAME sentence as a response to a post in which I explain why you are wrong is NOT an effective way to win a debate.

Yes, swarms can refer to bacteria. And also comets.

A swarm of bacteria would be a whole lot of bacteria moving around in a relatively high density.
A swarm of comets would be a whole lot of comets moving around in a relatively high density.

Bacteria are very small.
Comets are very large.

Since "swarm" refers to both bacteria and comets equally, "swarm" can not mean "small".

I'm still waiting for you to find "swarm" used to refer to a single small individual.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by IamJoseph, posted 10-18-2011 12:02 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by IamJoseph, posted 10-18-2011 2:16 AM Nuggin has responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 1807 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 268 of 336 (637794)
10-18-2011 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by IamJoseph
10-18-2011 12:24 AM


Life started in water; next up is air borne life. This is correct, nor is the premise of making such a claim anything less than astounding for its time.

Life started in the water, yes, then land life, Arachnids (spiders & scorpions) & Amphibians, then the first airborne, flying insects, the ancestors of the modern day Dragonflies, Mayflies, locusts & Cockroaches. One finds Arachnid & Amphibian fossils in Devonian layers whereas there are no winged creatures found below the Carboniferous.

There was no alphabetical writings then, but I believe the pyramids are older than 5000 years and these contain earlier writing modes.

Writing modes, yes, hieroglyphics and 5000 years would place them in 4th to 3rd Millenia BCE.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by IamJoseph, posted 10-18-2011 12:24 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6229
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 269 of 336 (637795)
10-18-2011 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by IamJoseph
10-18-2011 12:24 AM


IamJoseph responds to me:

quote:
I believe the pyramids are older than 5000 years and these contain earlier writing modes.

Well, no, they're not, but that's beside the point (and if they are, there goes the global flood...there's no flood damage to the pyramids.) Hebrew is alphabetic.

quote:
He is mentioned in a relic 100 years after his death.

No, he's not.

Hint: This is where you mention the item you are referring to. I'm pretty sure I know which one you mean, but you have to go first. You're the one making the claim.

quote:
Are you saying David is a myth?

I'm saying we have no real evidence for his existence. That doesn't mean he didn't exist, but he certainly didn't the way you think he did.

quote:
Life started in water; next up is air borne life.

But the Bible has it the other way around: Airborne life is described as coming first when it was the other way around. It also describes terrestrial plants coming first and that's even more ass backwards.

quote:
You have no proof of your claim

Nice try, but you're the one with the burden of proof. I don't have to prove that 2 + 2 = 4 in order to show that they don't equal 5. It would certainly be nice, but it isn't a requirement.

Since the Bible's description of the order of creation is not in agreement with the way life actually progressed, it is your burden to describe how they can be reconciled since you are the one claiming they can.

quote:
Does this apply also to a temple which was destroyed, listed in numerous books made before this date!?

Except there aren't any such references. This would be where you lay your cards on the table. You're the one making the claim. You're the one who needs to prove it.

quote:
We do need to learn it - it is indispensible: a host of primodial factors depend on it, and these are not found anywhere else.

The identical case exists for the Iliad and the Odyssey. Why do you accept the divine claims of one set of books and not another?

quote:
The origins of three religions depend on Abraham and Moses being credible entities else they fall in a heap

Why does that matter? Are you saying that if a lot of people believe in a dumb thing, that makes it not a dumb thing?

quote:
Genesis stands in the face of all notions of human history as a yard stick

Indeed.

And it fails to measure up. This would be where you provide your evidence that it does as you're the one making the claim.

quote:
significantly, we have no 'name' older than Adam

The Hindu would have something to say about that, seeing as how it's older than Judaism and its writings predate the Bible.

And by the way: "Adam" isn't a name.

quote:
the first 'king' is listed here as well as the first human cencus.

Except they're not.

quote:
Ancient names listed in the geneologies in Genesis are today used by archeology to verifiy dates.

No, not really. A couple, but only because we were able to validate their existence outside of the Bible.

quote:
There is no other writings more important or offers more to learn from: name one?

I've named two and hinted at a third source. Have you read them?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by IamJoseph, posted 10-18-2011 12:24 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by IamJoseph, posted 10-18-2011 3:17 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 1807 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 270 of 336 (637796)
10-18-2011 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by IamJoseph
10-17-2011 11:22 PM


Re: Evolved Warts
The Empire at Babylon, in 586BCE, was not Babylonian. Babylonians were the Mesopotamian people who occupied that area from ~the latter part of the 3rd Millemim BCE to the middle of the 2d millenium BCE. They were wiped out or absorbed into the Assyrian empire which had overthrown the Babylonians. The Assyrians took control of the Northern Kingdom (Israel) and made the Southern Kingdom (Judah) pay tribute ~722BCE. The Chaldeans overthrew tw the Assyrians in the 6th Century BCE and took control of Judah ~586BCE. They are the ones who destroyed the Temple and Took the leaders of Judah to Babylon. The Empire at Babylon in the 6th Century BCE was not Babylonian, as I have stated. Cyrus with his Persian/Median Army overthrew the Chaldeans and allowed the people of Judah to return and rebuild the temple. Cyrus equated his God, Marduk with the Judaic God, Yahweh.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by IamJoseph, posted 10-17-2011 11:22 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by IamJoseph, posted 10-18-2011 2:27 AM bluescat48 has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
1920
...
23Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017